The arrogant douche strikes back

The "used copy" issue is one I've always struggled with. I agree with Boris that it's OK for me to sell it if I paid for my copy in the first place because I'm simply selling property I bought. Where it gets "iffy" for me is the buyer. I have a ton of CDs I bought used at a CD store which essentially means the artist didn't get squat from my purchase.

I'm against downloading stuff unless you paid for it but in all honesty I don't think it's much different than buying a used CD - which I used to do all the time until CDs went the way of the dinosaur.

One analogy I used to always used to "justify" used CD buying in my head was housing purchases.

If I buy a house from someone who originally bought it new, the person who created it (the builder) doesn't get anything from my purchase. But in theory they already got their cut from the original purchaser. Not sure it that logic holds up to scrutiny or not but it helped ease my conscience when I would walk out of my favorite used CD store with almost $100 worth of used CD purchases.

tohostudios wrote:

The "used copy" issue is one I've always struggled with.  I agree with Boris that it's OK for me to sell it if I paid for my copy in the first place because I'm simply selling property I bought.  Where it gets "iffy" for me is the buyer.  I have a ton of CDs I bought used at a CD store which essentially means the artist didn't get squat from my purchase.  

I'm against downloading stuff unless you paid for it but in all honesty I don't think it's much different than buying a used CD - which I used to do all the time until CDs went the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah, that's one of those legally black & white yet morally grey areas.

What pisses me off is people getting all high and mighty about illegal downloading and not supporting the artists...and then you find out they buy 98% of their music used.

Painkiller wrote:

Lari wrote:

Owners of the music don't need rogue "fans" to upload their music. If they wanted to, they'd upload some songs on Youtube themselves. Leave it up to the makers of the music to decide how much "promotion" they want, and maybe even get ad revenue. Or choose to keep some of the music and only sell on CD/iTunes/Spotify.

Spotify rips off bands.

Eyesore wrote:

ALWAYS the case. It's the law, dude. There is no argument. If it's not your art, don't put it online.

Well, you know what? I think "the law" is a load of bullshit. I don't disagree that there are copyright laws broken and some people definitely crossed the line, but when it comes to ethics, I think it's wholly corrupt and easily abused by the "powers that be". I've seen YouTube channels get strikes for all the wrong reasons, and even successfully terminated by companies that didn't necessarily own the content. People who put so much work into their content, getting subscribers, etc. have went through all that idiocy of corporations. Freedom on the Internet continues to shrivel out. That only furthers all the more reasons people have been using VPNs, Tor, etc. to bypass unreasonable content restrictions based on their country, not wanting to be tracked down easily, etc.

Like I said, I take no sides in this. I'm glad to be able to afford to have a collection and all, but I can understand why people would have to resort to downloading. In fact, what about weeding out all the bootleggers who continue to populate the market? Even buying official releases from a random collector doesn't give the labels or even the bands a penny back. It all goes straight to that seller. Maybe it should be unlawful to sell back copyrighted albums? Return them to the store with a receipt for a half refund? That's silly. Just more stupid shit being pulled from corporate asses. It's not like they're going bankrupt anytime soon. So, "the law" can go F*ck itself. Not going to stop downloading at all.

That's my take on it all, and I'm just going to leave it at that.

All of this is irrelevant to the conversation.

S.D. wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

The "used copy" issue is one I've always struggled with.  I agree with Boris that it's OK for me to sell it if I paid for my copy in the first place because I'm simply selling property I bought.  Where it gets "iffy" for me is the buyer.  I have a ton of CDs I bought used at a CD store which essentially means the artist didn't get squat from my purchase.  

I'm against downloading stuff unless you paid for it but in all honesty I don't think it's much different than buying a used CD - which I used to do all the time until CDs went the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah, that's one of those legally black & white yet morally grey areas.  

What pisses me off is people getting all high and mighty about illegal downloading and not supporting the artists...and then you find out they buy 98% of their music used.  

Yeah, this is where morality and common sense comes into play. I don't really care unless it seriously impacts the artist and if I never give Lars Ulrich another penny I'll sleep just fine but if it's a band that desperately needs money to survive and they have made something I dig then I owe them money. I have and occasionally still do download albums that aren't available elsewhere but if I listen more than three times then I'll pick the record or CD up.

In response to Toho's point I have a different take on it. For me the buyer is doing nothing wrong. You don't have to pay Ford when you buy a second hand car because it's already been paid for, same goes for a specific record, the deed has passed over, but if the seller rips it all to his computer before he sells then I think that's a bit wrong as he has sold his copy of that recording.

Boris2008 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

tohostudios wrote:

The "used copy" issue is one I've always struggled with.  I agree with Boris that it's OK for me to sell it if I paid for my copy in the first place because I'm simply selling property I bought.  Where it gets "iffy" for me is the buyer.  I have a ton of CDs I bought used at a CD store which essentially means the artist didn't get squat from my purchase.  

I'm against downloading stuff unless you paid for it but in all honesty I don't think it's much different than buying a used CD - which I used to do all the time until CDs went the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah, that's one of those legally black & white yet morally grey areas.  

What pisses me off is people getting all high and mighty about illegal downloading and not supporting the artists...and then you find out they buy 98% of their music used.  

Yeah, this is where morality and common sense comes into play. I don't really care unless it seriously impacts the artist and if I never give Lars Ulrich another penny I'll sleep just fine but if it's a band that desperately needs money to survive and they have made something I dig then I owe them money. I have and occasionally still do download albums that aren't available elsewhere but if I listen more than three times then I'll pick the record or CD up.

In response to Toho's point I have a different take on it. For me the buyer is doing nothing wrong. You don't have to pay Ford when you buy a second hand car because it's already been paid for, same goes for a specific record, the deed has passed over, but if the seller rips it all to his computer before he sells then I think that's a bit wrong as he has sold his copy of that recording.

Yeah, that's another version of my house analogy. And I agree with you about the "rip then sell" practice.

I don't see any issue in buying second hand CDs. The value of a CD consists of many things. One of the bigger selling points of a CD is that it is a physical copy that can be re-sold. And the moment you re-sell it, you've stopped owning it.

Just like a video game controller, a baby stroller or a car. Incidentally, all of which I've bought second hand as well.

Morality of used music purchases?! Lol.  

The artists involved already made their money.  They pressed a specific amount of physical product and sold it.  They are out of the equation at that point.  This is how commerce works.  

I don't lose sleep over how much cash Toyota isn't getting when I purchase a used Camry. Toyota already got their profit from it.  Should they get more?  Should they profit twice?

There is also nothing morally wrong with ripping a CD and selling it. You are specifically granted that right when you purchase the recording. You may make millions of copies for your own use. Whether you sell the original media after ripping it is immaterial.

Witchfinder wrote:

There is also nothing morally wrong with ripping a CD and selling it.  You are specifically granted that right when you purchase the recording.  You may make millions of copies for your own use.  Whether you sell the original media after ripping it is immaterial.    

You're the law guy so I'll take your word for it, but wouldn't that in theory mean that one guy could buy a CD, rip it and sell it, the next guy could do the same until, in theory, everyone had the album but the band had only sold one copy and it would all be nice and legal?

If this is the case I suggest that we do this with the next Metallica album just to really piss Lars off! 

Boris2008 wrote:

There are bands who have used the illegal downloading thing to their advantage like Uncle Acid & the Deadbeats who in their 'mysterious' phase released their debut album (Vol 1) and only made 20 physical copies, they probably would have been mortified if only 100 people ever heard it but they knew that it would get downloaded all over the place and only increased the chatter about the band.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just put it up for a free download? Why sell it with the intention of giving it away for free?

Boris2008 wrote:

Witchfinder wrote:

There is also nothing morally wrong with ripping a CD and selling it.  You are specifically granted that right when you purchase the recording.  You may make millions of copies for your own use.  Whether you sell the original media after ripping it is immaterial.    

You're the law guy so I'll take your word for it, but wouldn't that in theory mean that one guy could buy a CD, rip it and sell it, the next guy could do the same until, in theory, everyone had the album but the band had only sold one copy and it would all be nice and legal?

If this is the case I suggest that we do this with the next Metallica album just to really piss Lars off! 

Yes. That's perfectly legal.

There is a morality to it (sort of).  

If I start listening to a band tomorrow and buy their entire catalog used then yes...the band has already made money from those specific physical items and I am fully within my rights as a consumer.  

I get that, I took copyright law in college.  

However, I'm not doing a damn thing to actually support this new band that I've discovered, I've only supported the used store or seller I bought the CD from.  I've not stolen anything from them legally, but I did "rob them" of the additional income they would have received if I had purchased the item new.

S.D. wrote:

There is a morality to it (sort of).  

If I start listening to a band tomorrow and buy their entire catalog used then yes...the band has already made money from those specific physical items and I am fully within my rights as a consumer.  

I get that, I took copyright law in college.  

However, I'm not doing a damn thing to actually support this new band that I've discovered, I've only supported the used store or seller I bought the CD from.  I've not stolen anything from them legally, but I did "rob them" of the additional income they would have received if I had purchased the item new.

Tangerine Dream haven't made a penny out of me and I own about 20 of their albums! Serves them right for being old! 

Boris2008 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

There is a morality to it (sort of).  

If I start listening to a band tomorrow and buy their entire catalog used then yes...the band has already made money from those specific physical items and I am fully within my rights as a consumer.  

I get that, I took copyright law in college.  

However, I'm not doing a damn thing to actually support this new band that I've discovered, I've only supported the used store or seller I bought the CD from.  I've not stolen anything from them legally, but I did "rob them" of the additional income they would have received if I had purchased the item new.

Tangerine Dream haven't made a penny out of me and I own about 30 of their albums! Serves them right for being old! 

I was thinking more along the lines of current groups, smaller artists, etc.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over buying a used Bob Dylan record for $1.00. But if it's a new band, especially an independent group who I know need every penny they can get I'll buy a new copy to support them.

Not required, but it makes me happy.

They made their money. The original buyer probably had an idea that one day they might sell their copy, and that affected positively in their decision to buy the album.

S.D. wrote:

Boris2008 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

There is a morality to it (sort of).  

If I start listening to a band tomorrow and buy their entire catalog used then yes...the band has already made money from those specific physical items and I am fully within my rights as a consumer.  

I get that, I took copyright law in college.  

However, I'm not doing a damn thing to actually support this new band that I've discovered, I've only supported the used store or seller I bought the CD from.  I've not stolen anything from them legally, but I did "rob them" of the additional income they would have received if I had purchased the item new.

Tangerine Dream haven't made a penny out of me and I own about 30 of their albums! Serves them right for being old! 

I was thinking more along the lines of current groups, smaller artists, etc.  

I'm not going to lose any sleep over buying a used Bob Dylan record for $1.00.  But if it's a new band, especially an independent group who I know need every penny they can get I'll buy a new copy to support them.  

Not required, but it makes me happy.

I get where you are coming from and I do the same, there is something that goes beyond laws and into 'what's right' and I know that people don't like the concept of metal music being art but it is and if you want the arts to thrive, you have to support the artists, particularly if the art they are creating is amazing (in your opinion) but not particularly commercially viable. This is especially important with newer artists. I bought a Purson T Shirt on their Kickstarter campaign when they were raising money for a short U.S tour, i don't wear band shirts but I thought that they deserved the support. 

I would like to point out that although this is something that I wholeheartedly believe in, I wouldn't want to suggest that everyone has to do it, it's just my choice.

Lari wrote:

They made their money. The original buyer probably had an idea that one day they might sell their copy, and that affected positively in their decision to buy the album.

Huh?  

I'm 100% aware they "made their money".  

And if I'm a really supportive fan I'll put that used CD back in the rack and grab a new copy so they'll make "a little more money".  Or, I'll buy the used copy and then go see them when they play locally and I'll buy a t-shirt or something.

Again, this is just something I personally do, I'm not suggesting anyone else do it.

Wow, talk about stirring the pop, heh

Anyhow, just few random things to clarify:

- Witchbound is a brand-new indy band, and their album is self-released via their own "El Puerto Records" - there is no corporate label involved whatsoever.

- Entire album is already uploaded on youtube through the bands digital distributor (Believe SAS), in a desired audio/visual representation and all proper info and links included.

- There are also numerous other fans uploading and sharing Witchbound songs in a proper way (i.e. giving credit and linking back to the band in the description, like Unknown Power Metal YT channel for example) which are on youtube and no one has an issue with whatsoever.

- From what I'm told the dude not only got pissed and refused to cooperate when the band politely asked him not to share the entire album, but instead modified the video description offering to send hi-quality audio rips to anyone interested... so the band exercised their legal rights and made youtube to remove the video.

Anyhow, I posted it here not because there was any monetary issue, or bands being ripped off etc. This is not the case at all, I was just shocked to see someone so obsessed with false sense of entitlement, devoid of basic understanding of what's right and wrong to a point he really sees himself as the victim in this situation... mind-boggling...

A musician puts a lot of hard work and money, not to mention to record, write an album. Studio costs, the producer's fee, setting up publishing, and God knows what else.

Sequencing an album takes alot of time and thought, and if I was an artist I would hate that something I put my sweat, blood and soul, can be taken without my permission and just given away.

The reality is thou, that happens to every artist today, whether you are Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, and its across all genres. The industry sowed the seeds to their own destruction years and years ago. Devalue music to the consumer and they will treat it like any disposable commodity.

Their is value to Spotify, Youtube, etc, but more as a promotional tool then anything else, but I predict the days of long careers maybe be over, and the money to be made from CDs, vinyl is no longer there, unless you are classic rock/metal artist.

I've been convicted about this problem recently. Pirating and expecting music to be free is usually done by people who overestimate the amount of good and charity that the average person will do without any reward. I wanted to make my own record (which I have), but have already considered the costs and fees of doing so, which is out of my league, at least in making something presentable. I once shared files on SoulSeek with this philosophy that music should be free, but if that was the case, I would hardly get anything done if at all when trying to put something together. THe difference between the success of kickstarters for people like Radiohead and Reznor is that they already had established fanbases through traditional methods when the old model was still viable. However, Reznor suffered more because he had already completed his work and ask people to name their own price whereas Radiohead was offering it after they paid, where fans already had an idea that the band would be making something quality. The idea that piracy is like communism is like what's going on in China. Most of the ideas they're stealing and copying from were pioneered in countries where copyright is taken more seriously to the extent that there is a stigma to motivated enough people in general to buy the product, more or less. China's ability to contribute or develop without so much input from countries where they respect the integrity of intellectual properties is next to nil. There would be more quantity than quality if that happened. If I were to sue someone over piracy of a recording that is both still in print and easily accessible, I would make sure to reject settlement out of court and go for cases or individuals that I was very likely to succeed at winning the case against, both in order to get money to produce better records in the future and lastly to send a message to society about how we'll end up like Russia or China in terms of how disrespecting people's work will undermine creative culture. I think the same with software like video games, though with most media there are always exceptions in terms of what stuff is justified in being pirated such as rare and obscure material.

muckie wrote:

I've been convicted about this problem recently. Pirating and expecting music to be free is usually done by people who overestimate the amount of good and charity that the average person will do without any reward. I wanted to make my own record (which I have), but have already considered the costs and fees of doing so, which is out of my league, at least in making something presentable. I once shared files on SoulSeek with this philosophy that music should be free, but if that was the case, I would hardly get anything done if at all when trying to put something together. THe difference between the success of kickstarters for people like Radiohead and Reznor is that they already had established fanbases through traditional methods when the old model was still viable. However, Reznor suffered more because he had already completed his work and ask people to name their own price whereas Radiohead was offering it after they paid, where fans already had an idea that the band would be making something quality. The idea that piracy is like communism is like what's going on in China. Most of the ideas they're stealing and copying from were pioneered in countries where copyright is taken more seriously to the extent that there is a stigma to motivated enough people in general to buy the product, more or less. China's ability to contribute or develop without so much input from countries where they respect the integrity of intellectual properties is next to nil. There would be more quantity than quality if that happened. If I were to sue someone over piracy of a recording that is both still in print and easily accessible, I would make sure to reject settlement out of court and go for cases or individuals that I was very likely to succeed at winning the case against, both in order to get money to produce better records in the future and lastly to send a message to society about how we'll end up like Russia or China in terms of how disrespecting people's work will undermine creative culture. I think the same with software like video games, though with most media there are always exceptions in terms of what stuff is justified in being pirated such as rare and obscure material.

I take your point on the fact that bands have built support through traditional means but it's never really been true. Take Metallica for instance, they made a name for themselves through demos and gigs and a guy who was willing to really take a risk on them and fund a record because the traditional methods didn't want to know. When they had reached a critical point when they could play a show in front of 3000 punters (admittedly Raven were the headliners) then the labels took an interest and wanted their cut. It wasn't the record label system that made the band, it was hard work from the band and some dedicated metalheads (the tape traders played a big role too)

I don't think the current system is stifling creativity at all. How many times in the '80s did we see a great band sign to a big label and all of a sudden. the image, the musical direction changed and you just knew that some industry knob end  had got his claws into your favorite band? Nowadays hardly anyone is on a major label, hardly any band expect to get rich so bands are just making the music they want to make.

But no, I am not some head in the clouds idealist and people have to eat/pay for recordings/keep a roof over their heads if they are going to create so I avoid Spotify. I like Bandcamp because if you dig what you hear then there's an option for a high quality download or to buy a physical copy, I also tend to think that the band have some control and contact with the listener and are respected more as it isn't the huge corporate beast that Spotify is.

If I could solve the issue of bands having control over their work and could ensure that bands got paid I would but the truth is, most bands have always gotten ripped off, whether that's Sabbath, Priest or Bowie in the '70s or now, different circumstances, same result. I seem to remember Lips from Anvil saying he's never had a penny from record labels!

I think one sector where it maybe is affecting creativity is with the big bands. A band like Metallica know they won't make a fortune with a new record but will make a ton by touring and selling merch on that tour so they chuck out a half hearted effort every six or seven years and spend lots of time on the road.

Club owners aren't really any better when it comes to "giving bands their fair share". And selling merchandise is nice, but in a way you're rewarding people who manufacture clothes more than people who actively took part in making your favourite record (songwriters, session musicians, engineers, producers, studios etc). Are you a fan more because of a clothes manufacturer or recording studio crew?.

Yes, studios and staff get paid a lump sum, but how does it affect their future prospects when an album sells 10 copies instead of 10,000? What did the t-shirt manufacturer do to help create your favourite metal album?